Prev: NYC LOCAL: Wednesday 31 March 2010 NJLUG: Revolution OS Movie
Next: inetd problems
From: David Schwartz on 23 Mar 2010 10:01
On Mar 22, 9:55 pm, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeif...(a)cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:

> > Twice that -- Seymour Cray was doing SMP with the CDC 6600 in 1964.

> 6500 (two 6400 CPUs) or 6700 (not really symmetric; a 6400 and a 6600).

Does the 'S' mean the CPUs are identical in capability? I thought it
just meant they had the same view of memory.

DS
From: Joe Pfeiffer on 23 Mar 2010 13:50
David Schwartz <davids(a)webmaster.com> writes:

> On Mar 22, 9:55�pm, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeif...(a)cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>
>> > Twice that -- Seymour Cray was doing SMP with the CDC 6600 in 1964.
>
>> 6500 (two 6400 CPUs) or 6700 (not really symmetric; a 6400 and a 6600).
>
> Does the 'S' mean the CPUs are identical in capability? I thought it
> just meant they had the same view of memory.

In its oldest and purest form, yes -- symmetric means symmetric. CPUs
identical, single OS image, any process on any CPU; otherwise it's ASMP.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see instances of people using the term
for something weaker (like just same view of memory), though.
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
From: Rainer Weikusat on 23 Mar 2010 13:56
Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer(a)cs.nmsu.edu> writes:
> David Schwartz <davids(a)webmaster.com> writes:
>> On Mar 22, 9:55�pm, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeif...(a)cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> > Twice that -- Seymour Cray was doing SMP with the CDC 6600 in 1964.
>>
>>> 6500 (two 6400 CPUs) or 6700 (not really symmetric; a 6400 and a 6600).
>>
>> Does the 'S' mean the CPUs are identical in capability? I thought it
>> just meant they had the same view of memory.
>
> In its oldest and purest form, yes -- symmetric means symmetric. CPUs
> identical, single OS image, any process on any CPU; otherwise it's ASMP.
> I wouldn't be at all surprised to see instances of people using the term
> for something weaker (like just same view of memory), though.

'Symmetric' was supposed to be a distinguishing property wrt yet older
designs where different CPUs were dedicated to specific tasks, eg, one
running a traditional (UP) UNIX(*) kernel.
From: Marc Haber on 24 Mar 2010 07:41
The Natural Philosopher <tnp(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Any piece of constantly developed software benefits from a total rewrite
>every ten years or so.

Yeah, missing features, new bugs, probably old bugs again. See KDE4
and grub2.

Greetings
Marc
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
From: Tim Roberts on 24 Mar 2010 23:43
Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer(a)cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:

>Tim Roberts <timr(a)probo.com> writes:
>
>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat(a)mssgmbh.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>SMP was a new and interesting problem about twenty years ago.
>>
>> Twice that -- Seymour Cray was doing SMP with the CDC 6600 in 1964.
>
>6500 (two 6400 CPUs) or 6700 (not really symmetric; a 6400 and a 6600).

All of the 6000s (and Cyber 70s and 170s) had either 10 or 20 peripheral
processors, each of which was a full-fledged processor with both a small
private memory and a shared view of central memory.
--
Tim Roberts, timr(a)probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: NYC LOCAL: Wednesday 31 March 2010 NJLUG: Revolution OS Movie
Next: inetd problems